Raúl Grijalva: “This amendment significantly alters critical environmental review requirements and limits opportunity for the public to…”

“This amendment significantly alters critical environmental review requirements and limits opportunity for the public to challenge forest management projects. Restricting NEPA analysis to two alternatives may seem like it will save time and money, but this cuts right at the heart of critical environmental protections. NEPA doesn't hurt forest management projects; bad planning, ignoring science, and disingenuous intentions hurt forest management projects. NEPA supports collaboration through public participation. It allows many voices and different voices to participate in the planning process, which leads to better results and reduced costs. NEPA ensures Federal agencies consider all alternatives, without requiring that agencies select the most environmentally friendly option or value the environment over other concerns. Much like the forestry provisions in the base text of this bill, we have been down this road before. House Republicans tried to include harmful provisions to scale bedrock environmental laws and restrict access to the courts during the omnibus negotiations. All of these toxic proposals were rejected by the Senate. Let's not make the Senate say ``no'' for a second time. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.”